grudgingly supporting mitt romney and that is it. there are lots of -- there is a lot of talk about swing states, those numbers have been the same way. in colorado our latest polling shows barack obama down by four points. these numbers are moving in similar fashion across most of the states, with one big exception, ohio. in a high of the numbers show that it is 48-48. there is great enthusiasm from republican voters across the country. the democrats appear to have a stronger ground game and we are seeing that especially in ohio. before we get into all of that, we have two guests and they've both say they have said things

they regret they have informed me that is not accurate. governor rendell is someone who speaks his mind freely on nbc and obviously served as governor of the great state of pennsylvania. i want to start by asking them about their home states. can mitt romney win? >> i would say yes the pennsylvania is in play. and i would say that it is probably the best bellwether of what happened over the last three weeks. the their campaign is particularly active in a pennsylvania. they have not been running many television ads because most campaigns thought it was going to be in the obama camp and felt that an expensive state like pennsylvania, one, four republicans, which has been --

four republicans it has been called fool's gold for a long time. to move pennsylvania, from a double-digit rates to a handful race or less, really, with national movement, not anything the campaigns were doing in the states, i would make the argument that one of the reasons we have not seen the race changed that much in a lot of these swing states is because there has been a tense race going on, but in the states where there is not that you have seen more movement. i think of pennsylvania is one of those states. the question here is, who is going to invest the resources? pennsylvania does not have early voting. i would make the argument that if i were the candidate, that is the great place to put your money in the last week because in ohio, half the people will have voted already. why invest more in ohio when you have a larger percentage of the vote still to vote in pennsylvania?

as you could imagine, i am not an strategizing with the romney campaign very much, but just as an outsider, i would suggest that is a good place to put some resources. i do think the dynamic of the state has changed. with oil and gas exploded in pennsylvania and growth in the central and western part of the state, and the character of the state of -- has changed as a result of that. we control a solid majority of the congressional districts. and we control the state house of representatives. the idea that pennsylvania can vote republican is silly. -- cannot vote republican is silly. >> @ governor crist is this a state that mahdavi can be one? -- that can be one?

>> i do not talk freely -- four years and are supported hillary clinton. after hillary withdrew, it was suggested to support then senator obama. he asked me what my chances were and i gave the usual stock answer. i gave a good answer, but i could not resist. i said, on the other hand, we would be a balanced ticket. he doesn't wear a flag penn -- flag pin and i do. i got off the phone up to 30 p.m. and at 2:31 p.m. i got a

phone call from david axelrod and he said, i hope you know that no one in chicago thought that was funny. [laughter] in the book recounts that story. i said, david, you guys better get a sense of humor. you will never make it to november. and as i said in the but, they never did, but they needed to november just fine -- i said in the books, they never did, but they made it to november just fine. the reason i do not think it is in play is because you have not seen the romney campaign or crossroads of a dime on tv in philadelphia. if they thought it was winnable,

with ohio -- if you lose ohio but win in pennsylvania, it is a wash. and you have won the election probably. they seem to have adequate money, at least crossroads does. why would they not be in the hands of an ad? i started thinking about that -- why would they not be in pennsylvania? her eyes are thinking about that in a machiavellian way. maybe they were thinking, if we don't have enough to influence voters, and maybe if we just a quiet and the obama folks as a quiet, then maybe they figure our turnout collapses and republicans still turn out well and they sneak across the finish line and do a startling upset. i believe that is a possibility

enough that i was on the horn to chicago and i said c'mon number one, i want bill clinton to do it robo kalla to every home in philadelphia and -- to do a robo call into every home in philadelphia and pittsburgh. i do not think it is in play. because again, we have not seen the romney campaign or crossroads involved. >> is ramat pavillion -- is your machiavellian approach does, like he said c'mon -- like he said, going to be affected by a blitzer? truxel -- >> it is a very small percentage. >> there is another race in pennsylvania, the senate race

that senator casey should have locked up quite a while ago. it is getting more competitive. tom smith is running a very aggressive campaign. where do you see that? >> i think senator casey made a mistake. he waited too long. he held everything in check to see if the race got tight. how many of you watch your favorite football team play prevent defense and watch the lead dissipate. it happens every time. >> i think he is still the favored to win the race, but we

have a candidate, a -- and oil and gas by who will put $25 million in the race. i am told another $5 million or so coming down the stretch in addition to whatever he can raise. that is a big number in pennsylvania, and that can move numbers, and one thing that senator casey has not done purdum gilley well is define himself. and ed has made that comment -- has not done very well is define himself. and ed has made that comment. that is not a great place to be. if mitt romney can do the rope a dpoe and slide in, then there is really no one in the city of philadelphia that is going to energize turn out in the city. this could be a real sleeper on

election night. >> let's move beyond pennsylvania. what would you think the romney campaign means to do? we are two weeks out. he may have a little momentum, but he's clearly struggling in a couple of key swing states. how does he conclude the sale? >> i'm not too sure there is much more that governor romney can do as a candidate at this point. obviously, try to take advantage of the cycle. just try to win the day. every day is a campaign and just try to win the day. have the stories be about him defending and you attacking as opposed to the other way around if we have a day like that, then i think he is winning today. and that is a good thing. if he can go day by day and be on the offensive, have obama explaining, have obama try to defend of tax -- fend off

attacks. if this race gets turned around, that is when the momentum stops. the key is to stay on the offensive. i think it is highly likely that he can do that. he is the incumbent president because there's a lot more to attack. and there are things happening within his own administration. you saw the e-mails today on an ghazi. -- on benghazi. the aggressive and drive it home, and then ultimately, it is all about turn out an enterprising -- energizing your base. the more you can keep the president on the defensive and look aggressive, if you energize your basic mdot the other thing is that -- you energize your

base, and the other thing is that you influence these other voters based on how they feel about things. coming down the stretch, if it feels like mitt romney has the momentum and the aggression, then it swings things that way. if they are not for him out, they probably will not be. they may not vote. but if ron makenna showed that energy -- romney can show that energy and keep this going, that i think it could be bigger than some people think. >> our polling shows maybe 2% or 3%. when we look epo those people, the president's -- we look at those people, the president's job approval is only 20% or so. a look at the economy and worry that it will not get better.

mitt romney is saying we do not want four more years like we have just had. president obama is saying we do not want eight years like we had under george bush, and everybody agrees with both of them. but where do you go from here? >> the analysis of what governor romney and his campaign has to do is absolutely right. his campaign has to work on the ground game. likely scenarios -- are not saying probable, but possible is for mitt romney to win the popular vote and barack obama to win the electoral college. we had that once before 12 years ago. vice president gore got about half a million votes and governor bush. but people forget that john carey had 71,000 more votes -- if john carey had gotten 71,000

more votes in ohio, he would have won the popular vote and by 3 million puritan -- 3 million. >> simply because of ohio? >> because of ohio. i think it is a possibility that governor romney will get something like 271 and lose the part of the vote. a goes to the question of whether we should have an electoral college at all. for the obama folks it is two things. it is all about a ground game, and one. and number two, he has to deliver a strong message not so much for the undecided, as scott said, but more so for those days voters that are not going to vote for governor romney under any circumstances. diyala decision they're making is whether it is worth going to the polls. -- the only decision they are making is whether it is worth going to the polls. if the last two freshmen --

advertisement i have seen are the morgan freeman had and the one with the president speaking of himself. they are pretty good. it may influence someone to take a deep sigh and go out and vote for him again. >> 2 out of three voters tell us that they trust their own economic judgment more than they trust the president opposes. two out of three trust their judgment more than they trust governor romneys. the truth is, most people do not think things would about a matter who wins. this cynicism is going to make it very difficult for whoever wins on november 6. it can get anything done when they take office in january? >> pipa well, sure. they have to exercise real leadership. if president obama loses the election -- and i'm not sure that he will.

i have to say he is a slight favorite in the electra college. -- the electoral college. with simms and bowls, he did not do anything with it initially appeared -- with simpson-bowles, he did not do anything with it initially. he did not grant -- brought that by the horns and go with it. and the reason he did not is because his political per people said, no way are you going to tell seniors that they will have to take a change in entitlements. interestingly, governor romney and paul reihan -- paul ryan fell into the trap of telling this to seniors. people vote for leadership. at what the president should have done is what i believe he will do if he is reelected, and

what are held governor romney will do, and that is, lead. it would have a framework here -- we have a framework here that can fix the debt. nothing is more important than eliminating the deficit and fixing the debt. so many things will flow from that. the president has to get both sides together, the caucus leaders, the people who took some chances on since and-bolts, tom coburn who said, i guess, i'm taking a chance. we've got to get the big urbansa -- the dick durbins, who supported simpson-balls even though it -- simpson-bowles.

and we need to get something along those lines to eliminate the deficit and fix the debt, invest in building a true american energy independence, that will increase the tax credit for wind and solar, do things for gossip and solar and oil, and -- to do things for gas and oil. even if we do not build new nuclear reactors, our reactors are going to be old in 20 years. have an all-in strategy and invest in training and education and leave the congress on both sides. we're going to do this, but i'm going to take the weight. if there are tough decisions, blame them on me. that is what executive leadership is about.

that is what the president is determined to do after the election. he has sort of hinted about it. i would talk about it. governor romney, who is a problem solver, he would be inclined to do the same thing. people respond to leadership. the paralysis that you see just needs a good idea, and figs in the debt is a great idea. have a little tough leadership. if we can get both components, we can get things done. >> i want to throw out a couple of datapoint. the generation gap is significant. senior turnout is much greater. they're much more enthusiastic than they were four years ago. voting among seniors could be a very significant impact on the outcome of the campaigns. second, when you talk about leadership and where the voters are, one of the common complaint in this town are -- is that voters are the problem. they will not accept any cuts.

that is wrong. three years ago when president obama announced he will send a $250 check to seniors because they did not get a cost-of- living adjustment on their social security, a majority of seniors were opposed to that. there were not looking to get a special favor. what they are looking for, coming of your leadership, and, is to make sure that they are not the only ones. do you see this on leadership going forward? >> i do. i served in the house for four years and the senate for 12 years. i think i can say pretty confidently that the vast majority of members of congress are not leaders. they are followers. >> oh, absolutely. >> the most important thing for the president to do is to not work on congress. that has limited potential.

as you have seen a from previous president. you've got to be able to cajole and coerced and build consensus, and the only way to do that is through the american public. that is why i am a little concerned and for either candidate when they win. a very concerned for president obama, because i think he has not really laid out any kind of leadership message on how he's going to solve these problems. he has done everything to hide the ball. saying that we will tax the rich people, that is great, but nobody believes that is really going to solve the problem. he has not laid out a leadership position. governor romney has, but a lot of it is 10 years down the road. he has done a courageous thing, but a lot of it is sugarcoated to make sure that people today are not really affected by it. the problem is, we have to do something now.

our fiscal situation, our economic situation, we are at a turning point. most economists will say that we cannot wait 10 years to deal with these problems. that makes it hard to deal with an election like this where it really has not been about tough choices or big choices in some respects. and to have the ability to lead after you win. he has come forward with all of these plants. and the public is going to say, we just had an election and for two years i did not hear any of this. where is the fire? you said there was a fire. that is the problem. the public will be very hard to do the kind of scale of change that is necessary in this town to go along after a campaign that did not talk about anything close to the scale of change we need. that is my concern.

>> really quickly on that, rick is right, neither side has done a really good job of say where the fire is and where the solutions are. the president has talked about -- he told you about in the second big doing a form of samson -- bowles -- simpson- bowles. he has components of it. the weddie has not done is put together in a package and say, i will -- what he has not done is put it together in a package and say, i will lead. we do not trust the basic intelligence and fairness of the american people as an elected officials. i think rick is right when he says that, too. if you get a group of seniors and you say to them, hey, guys, social security was passed in the 1930's.

what was the life expectancy in the 1930's? probably 63 or 64. >> 61. >> medicare was passed in 1960. what was the life expectancy then? probably 65. today, it is at 85. these programs were never meant to last 20 years. of course we are going to change them, and we will change them in a balanced way will remove the cap so people like me do not have our social security stops at $110,000. but we will also have to change some of the structure. some singers may not be happy about that, but if someone talked to them in a reasonable, goldway, they will accept it. >> i went out and talked to the villages -- in a reasonable the adult way, they will accept it. >> i went out and talk to the villages in florida. groups of seniors, i would walk

through it in detail. at the end of the conversation i would ask how many oppose what i knew in. i did not get a single hand. -- would oppose what i am doing. i did not get a single hand. there is more that we have to do. but there are some very low hanging fruit out there that we can take care of. a one of them is the issue of eligibility. you try to tell any 62-year-old in america that they are old and they will punch you in the face. no one who is 62 and america thinks they are old. but they are eligible for social security. that is it a ridiculous situation. >> by the way, the majority of seniors is not to be retired by age 65. they would like to be working

part time in their dream scenario and as an historic note, the first social security recipient paid $22 into the system. she lived for more than 40 years after she retired and receive $21,000 in benefits. that is the kind of good return a one today will receive. -- that no one today will receive. we have been talking about the fiscal cliff. >> one of the reasons i'm a little bit more optimistic than report is is that as governor and as mayor i took advantage of crises. you take it and you run with it. there is certain -- there are certain things that people will accept in a crisis environment that they will not necessarily accept when it is going well. ecowas your point that no one has been yelling fire -- that

goes to your point that no one has been yelling fire. is an impetus to get things done. i am co-chairman of the campaign to fix the debt. i do not know how many of you or your cdo's were present when my cochair and i spoke to the roundtable in washington. bob zelnick is a member of our board. he said, the u.s. is one debt deal away from semenya its place as the world of leading economic power for the next -- from cementing its place as the world, leading economic power for the next 25 years. and he is right to i think we can do it. i think senator toomey has been a leader on this issue. if he were convinced, and

convincing him is never easy, but if he were convinced, he would get things done. it may not be 100% of what what what, -- if i could play one thing in the senate cloakrooms, it would be the rolling stones song "you can't always get what you want." >> it is fairly easy at one level because you have budget involved. you can say that the debt is $16 trillion, or $100 trillion if you're talking about other numbers. how you start talking about it? gregg's regulations are wrong. -- regulations are lost. the problem i see out in the business community all the time is this administration moving

forward with regulations that are inconsistent with the underlying law, and advisory opinions that are inconsistent, and implementations that is inconsistent with what congress intended and with what the law is. the work requirements for welfare cross it was very clear. i was a lead sponsor of the bill and there was no waiver capability for the report -- the work requirement, and he did it. immigration and others -- you have a bunch of issues. and what that does is create uncertainty. if the government can go and do what they want regardless of what the lot is -- what the law expert, and the government says coppola -- what the lot is, and the government says, and going to do it and go ahead and sue me. that is as much of the problem as the volume we have seen.

the cost of the regulation is inconsistent with the underlying law that was passed by congress, or never even contemplated by congress. co2 is a toxic substance. i cannot imagine anyone who voted for the clean air act who would have suggested that was something that was covered under the definition when they passed that bill. the overriding issue is government run amok because the president is incapable of getting any of the stuff through the congress. you have a president who has decided that we are going to do this on our own. and the media, as we all know, it's certainly not going to go out and hammer him for doing these things. they agree with him for the ones to do. they let him get away with it. it is up to conservatives to try to make the case to a public that is, for the most part, and

affected directly. they certainly are indirectly, but it is really the business community that has to bear the brunt of the rugged ituri overreach. it is a tough environment -- the regulatory overreach. it is a tough environment to change around without a new president. if we are stuck for four more years, this president is not going to get better in the regulatory side. he is going to be much more aggressive than the house. he has held back on things he will not go back on any more. andy will not go through congress, but on his own. with respect to try to figure out the fiscal issues, if the economy continues to grow at 1% or 1.4% compound i do not care what -- 1% or 1.4%, i do not care what do you close.

he will not handle the fiscal deficit that we have. you may hurt the economy even more under this regulatory brace that the president has put us in. that is my biggest concern with that obama presidency. regardless of trying to solve the budget crisis, he will be doing so much more damage with obamacare being implemented and tax cuts off expiring and with more aggressiveness on his part, this economy is going to crumble. and credit do you see the rugged ituri issues the -- >> do you see the regulatory issues that way? >> we do not have enough time. but let me just to the extent that the public plays over on regulations, but if you say to the government, the government gives us too much regulation. they would say, absolutely. it is like saying to the people,

does the government spends too much money? absolutely. then you go through the component parts of what the spending is on. should we spend less money on defense? absolutely not. less money on education? no, no, that is at our kids future. people are for spending cuts, but against almost every individual spending cuts. same thing about regulations. they have turned into a bugaboo in this campaign. but i have yet to hear governor romney or congressman ryan spell out the regulations that they would change. >> we do not have enough time. during debate and at other times people have asked them to give them ideas of regulations they would change. they do not get specific. why? because most regulations are targeted at at an ill.

i will see that many are targeted at a nail and they do not actually get at it and do more harm than good. there is a soccer mom who has a 5-year-old kid who has asthma and the last thing she wants is to have the stuff in the are exacerbating your kids asthma. it is a strange political issue. obamaassume president winds. i think the business community and the president have to try again. i think they have to sit down and go over a whole raft of issues. i make a different prediction that merika does. and then break does. i don't think the president is going to go hog wild. if he can get a dialogue going with the business community, he can. he still has some friends in the business community. if he can get that dialogue going and the business

community comes to him with a common-sense approach and says, here are the four things that are most vexing to us, do you think you could work with us to try to fix these, i think the answer they would hear from the president would be yes. and number two, some regulations are good for business. i do not know how many of you represent a cousin -- represent companies or do legal work for the jail business. in 2007, we had 72 shale gas wells. in my last year of gov. we permitted at 3300. the shale gas took off under me. there were problems in the beginning. some of the walls were so poorly constructed by these cowboys that came up from taxes that there were literally explosions and it lit up the sky and reported burning material onto houses nearby, onto farms and farm animals. there were cases where the fraad water -- frack water was dumped

into waterways without being properly cleaned. we ran through the legislature construction and regulation for guidelines on how it should be constructed and that they had to clean the water to an acceptable level under the clean and drink you water act before you can dump it. the companies were smart enough not to push back to much on these. and since then, except for the far, far left, we have had no real problems with shale gas or frack water spilling into any waterway or anything blowing up. if you have a deregulated area, it can't kill business. if deregulation leads to problems, the goose gets killed

fairly quickly. >> if we have any industry ordaz -- in a poll when we asked if there was not enough regulation, the answer was overwhelmingly yes. however, if you ask if they would rather save more competition, they generally would. if you do not explain how somebody is going to be held accountable, the assumption is you are just trying to get out from under. and on the spending side, i do have to say there are a number of spending cuts that people do respond -- and do support. and on military matters, if you ask people if we spend too much, too little, were right -- the right amount. liberals say, too much and, conservatives say too little, and moderates a jezebel right.

if you ask if we should remove its troops from japan, most americans say, yes, we should do that. if you talk about big bird, or something that is not a serious discussion -- foreign policy, is foreign policy an issue at all in this election? >> i don't think it has been. i think president obama wants foreign policy to be a slogan. i got bin laden, let's move on. and really does not want to drill into the various areas around the world. and governor romney clearly from the other night does not want foreign policy to be much of an issue. he had plenty of opportunity to go after obama and chose not to do so. he chose to rise above begala --

above at all and can indicate that he can do this, that he has the knowledge and the demeanor to be able to be commander-in- chief. i think governor romney want this to be about the economy. every chance he got in the debate he brought it back to the economy. he brought it back to president obama's record. president obama is looking at the mess around the world and does not want to talk about that. he wants to talk about getting bin laden. as a result, a foreign-policy has taken a back seat. can the president have an impact on the fiscal situation? yes, but he is the sole player, by and large, on national security issues. i do not think we have a particularly good idea from this campaign the differences between the two candidates as to their vision for america around the

world and what they would do in a lot of these countries. i think we have a situation in the middle east that is a serious one. a nuclear iran is the number-one threat to the stability of the middle east, and to our security as well. but at least from my perspective, there was not a clear difference between governor romney and president obama on the issue of what to do now, other than to get a little tougher. i figure that is not going to work. iran is going to get a nuclear weapon. i do not care how many centers to put in place. they are moving forward and have made that clear. i don't think either candidate has laid out what they would do and where there would be a red line. would you draw a bad -- a red line?

netanyahu has asked for it, but neither of our candidates have said what they are going to do. russia is very different than it was four years ago. in their aspirations and what they are doing in trying to influence the region and change things. it is one of the reasons i do not think we should pull our troops out of japan and western europe. we made a deal with the japanese and the germans that if they did militarize we will be there if some of their more hostile neighbors are thinking of expansion. i do not think we want to militarize germany or japan. if we leave, that is what is going to happen. i do not think that is good for the world. should the united states played a role? who will if we do not? those questions have not been answered in this campaign. is unfortunate because i think people do care about our national security, but it has

not been highlighted by the campaign. >> one more question for each of these settlements -- these gentlemen and then we will take your questions this is about a poisonous political environment that we have today. i am a new york giants football fan. and when the redskins play the eagles, i want them both to lose. intellectually, i know that cannot happen, but that is what i want. there are a lot of people run this country who whenever republicans play the democrats, they want them both to lose. in 2006 and in 2010, they voted against whoever was in charge. if they just wanted to hondros someone out and hope something would improve -- they just wanted to throw someone out and hope something will improve. how do we get back to an environment where you vote on the issues and not hate someone

who disagrees with you? >> there were times that ed and i could work together, and we did. and we did so in a way that i think benefited the state and, hopefully, the country. he was not for me in any of my races. are was not for him in the of his races. but my job was to make sure that ed rendell was the best governor that we could possibly have in pennsylvania, or the best mayor of philadelphia, when i was a u.s. senator. because that is my state and that is my city. we had to work together on things. i disagree with him on policy -- if i disagreed with him on policy and i will step back. but i thought it was really important that we have an open dialogue and to disagree about

being -- without being disagreeable. and to work together for our common in art -- enterprise. i know i have a reputation for being a hard charger and a strong conservative and having a pretty sharp elbows in fighting for the things that i believe in, but i have a good success rate in the senate of getting a lot of things done. you do not do that unless you work with this -- work with the other side. there's something to be said for -- barbara boxer and i fought like cats and dogs on countless issues. but some ave accomplishments i had, she was the sponsor on the a side. -- some of the accomplishments i had, she was the sponsor on the other side. if i could get her, it is going to pass unanimously. and by and large, it did.

that is what we ought to start looking at the idea of moving the ball and -- moving the ball instead of digging in and begin they are bad people. they are misguided, but not bad. [laughter] >> that is what i say about eagles fans. i'm a steeler fan. >> rick is absolutely right. the press would ask me, how was rick santorum as a senator? i would say, look, we disagree on a lot of issues, but whenever we worked together he would allow me to make my case we worked accordingly. he was great at getting those dollars and bringing them home. i said, in fact, he was a great support center. -- poor, senator.

then i realized i was probably not helping him too much in the -- he was a great pork senator. then i realized i was probably not helping him to much in the republican primary, slice of saying that. but he was so good at building trades. it was done solely because the trades knew that on important construction products that were good for pennsylvania c'mon not waste -- that were good for pennsylvania, not wasteful spending, but good spending, he would deliver. i think it is all going to stem from how we do on the debt and the deficit. that will be the first thing. the fiscal cliff is there. we've got to get it done. the pressure from the business community -- the campaign to raise that -- to fix the debt, we have raised $35 million already.

in part to get the american people beginning to think about it. and in part, to help the senators that are making the tough vote and then are opposed in their primary because they made the tough vote. apart from those who showed some leadership on simpsonm-bowles, if they prevail and this gets done, then you pay that off of that and you say to everybody after it has been successfully done, you bring everyone in a week later and you say, you know, look at what we did. we dealt with the greatest immediate challenge facing this country, and we did it by all except in less than we wanted. we all took a bit of a hit by seeing that there is shared sacrifice. can we do that on energy?

can we do that on education? what eachigure out side wants and try to get a little bit of it so we can move forward? folks, it has gone wrong very quickly. i will give you the most shocking statistic to make this point. and and and scalia -- antonin scalia, an appointee of reagan, was confirmed by the senate 97 to nothing. ruth bader ginsburg -- ruth bader ginsburg who is as liberal or as scully is conservative, was confirmed by the senate 94-3. it was not so long ago that we voted on nonpartisan grounds, not on ideological polarization, but on the fact that they were

great lawyers and great legal scholars, who deserve to be on the court because of their scholarship and their character. how did it get so wrong so fast? we talk about polarization. the three most important achievements of the bush administration, the most important changes -- the war, medicaid party, and no job left behind -- medicaid part d, no child left behind all receive significant support. on medicare, most of the democrats voted. and on no child left behind, ted kennedy sponsored the bill. that was seven or eight years ago. how did it go so bad so quickly? for a lot of reasons, but it went so bad so quickly.

i believe that of men and women will get together and see what will work, i think we can cure it almost as quickly. and i hope we can because the clock is running. >> i would say that the reason it got so bad is because president obama started out in his term where he did not have to compromise. he could get whatever he wanted because he had a super majority of the house and senate and that is the way he began to govern and he was never able to change. he was able to get a lot of stuff through without having to work with republicans. it is always easier to work with the folks that like you and say good things about you and try to reach out and get folks on the other side. i think president obama got into that mold and has never been able to break out of it. that is why we are as divided as we are. >> if that is correct, you can

forgive president obama because the day he was making his inaugural address, there was a meeting of 15 leading republicans trying to figure out how to make him a one-term president. and mitch mcconnell, who deserves an a for honesty and an f for policy, actually said publicly that our number one priority is to make barack obama a one-term president. no, senator, your number one priority is to fix the challenges that face this country. if you do not get that, you do not belong in the senate. if president obama responded in that way, he had some good reasons to do so. >> do we have some questions? >> we currently have five senate seats in your tossup category, five lean democrats and four

leading republicans on the of the side. give us your perspective on that. >> at the beginning of the year we thought republicans were favored to control the u.s. senate. and olympia snowe retired. then we had thought a kid with his infamous comments in -- todd akin with his intimate comments in missouri. it is very close now. and i do not think it is a foregone conclusion. two of these races that republicans would have to win to get control of the senate are in massachusetts and connecticut. if the choice was between scott brown and elizabeth warren, there is no doubt in my mind it would pick scott brown. if the choice is between democrats can join the senate and republicans controlling the senate, that is a no-brainer in massachusetts. it is likely that scott brown will be defeated.

in connecticut come on mcmahon did much better than i had expected. the problem you have as a republican in connecticut, the political gravity in the state will be working against you. that will be a tough race. and now the great state of indiana may also be going through a shake up because of comments made. >> the indiana comments? >> if someone gets pregnant during a break that might be god's will -- during a rape that might be god's will that was not a comment that was well- received. >> that was made by the republican candidate who beat dick lugar. >> it was ahead by five or six. in the polls. >> what he was saying is that god does not make mistakes. yes, it is a horrible thing, but god let that happen.

that is a thing that christians believe. it is god's will, and it is a horrible thing, but sometimes bad things happen. to take it for anything other than that, that somehow god wants people to be raped is a complete mischaracterization of that comment. >> that is a fair clarification, however, it is also a political statement. >> i understand, but this gotcha stuff in the middle of a debate where you do not say exactly how you say what you say -- i know it is real, but it seems to be all favre on one side over the other. but that is another story. and >> in virginia, george allen is running consistently three or four. behind mitt romney in the polls. right now, we show george allen trailing slightly in the state.

>> i have a question regarding polarization. how much you think the so- called campaign finance reform, which took a lot away from the party's, and also the cable networks contributing to the polarization and fragmentation of the public and created some of this difficulty in getting along? >> governor? gregg's very much so the 24 -- >> very much so. the 24 hour a day cable t.a.r.p. -- cable television feeds the extremes. we have a great concourse man who raped nose in pennsylvania knows, and he was a great guy.

he was a trial lawyer and much more aggressive. he was not a bad guy, but tim holden should never have lost. he was one of the most valuable democrats we had in the congress. people have been applied in the floor with the democratic candidate in indiana. the republican debates are not. they keep electing people -- >> the republican base that supported rick santorum. [laughter] >> they keep snatching certain victory and opening it up for a winnable election. it happened in delaware with the which a lady. it happened in nevada. harry reid was in deep trouble if the other candidate had won. both of those things are huge factors. >> i would agree with that. i think the campaign finance

laws, mccain fine gold, are absolutely disaster. they knew the political parties and they filter all the money to groups that are unaccountable to the american public. the idea that we can take politics out of politics is absurd. i cannot imagine anybody who wants to see transparency -- look, we have a situation in pennsylvania. ed rendell about $1 million contributions when he ran from -- ran for governor. but everybody knew where it came from. and you did. >> i had 87 people that gave me more than $100,000. >> right. and you can take as much money as you want as long as you publicly disclose that.

those people that are going to spend in excess of $2,500 to help him become governor, but now you know. it was given to him and you now know who it is for. instead of giving it to some group that has some funny name that you will forget after the next election and have them have the power to elect or not the next president. we need to get rid of these ridiculous restrictions on contributions and let the american public give transparently and openly and let the candidates have control of the races again instead of all of these outside groups having more influence and spending more money than the candidates themselves. >> one other factor that i think should be included in this is the primary system that we face today. when john kennedy -- john kennedy ran for president, he only took part in five primaries. from 1920 to 1972, we had a

landslide presidential election every year, or every other year. that build consensus and let the losing side know they really lost. since we went through all primary says -- to an all primary system from dominating the president, we've had only one landslide. -- since we went to a system of all primaries for nominating the president, would have only one landslide. >> i disagree. i was the only one that did not hire a pollster in my campaign. i think one reason is that my -- the country has changed. when people say the country is divided, i think there was much more consensus in america about what america is and the general direction we should go 50 or 60 years ago then there is today. i think there are fundamental differences and it is being reflected in the political parties. i think it is being reflected in votes that are being called

extreme. they are not. they are just different visions of what america should be. and what our role should be in the world. while the role of government should be in our lives. what the role of faith should be. these are fundamental issues that are very different points of view. the idea that to o'neil and ronald reagan can get together -- they had a sort of a basic common sense god use. not lead the country. it is a reflection of the country. when we see very different types of people being elected and nominated by the parties, that is because that is where america is. that will not change unless we see some type of events that are happening. who knows, to try to get people to come together and say -- wait a minute, we need to get together and figure out who we

are and what we are doing to get on the same track. >> the sensor made a comment about public opinion or the nation's leading the change. that is how change takes place in america. rosa parks took the upper seat in montgomery, alabama. it did not create the civil- rights movement. it was a courageous act, but public opinion had changed before that. and the reason we know that public opinion change first is because rosa parks did the same thing 12 years earlier and nothing happened. in between, african-american soldiers came back from world war ii, southerners came back north with a different set of views, but jackie robinson began to play major-league baseball. the political process caught up later and it took a catalyst to spark the change.

right now we are in one of those moments where public opinion is ahead of the political leadership. >> importantly, what rick says about people walking into thoughts and ideologies is true, but on the other hand every poll shows that people want our elected officials to compromise and get things done. that is the message. >> i am accompanying ed miller, from texas. karl rove is single-handedly responsible for turning my mother into an armchair pollster. every other day she calls up and says -- french, obama is up by three. is obama up by three? it is within the margin of error. [laughter]

where are you in the industry at the response rate article where people exist in the land mines without being male in the post office box. the social universe, ipad, iphone, a cell phone. >> i think everyone should be required to have a land line and answer when we call. that would make our lives easier. [laughter] byron york called me from ohio to say that people in the street are talking about that sample, was it d +3 or +7? the intensity of discussion about polls has been incredible. on the general topic of pulling it in terms of how to follow all of that information, you look for the common ground in all the polls. look at hours every day on the

web site, but check out each one and you see a lot consistency, not different. governor romney is doing better since the first debate. they all -- that is where they get their sense of the race. five years from now, there will be no phone polling. we are in a circumstance where the initiative does not know what it will look like. many of you are old enough to remember, as i do, my grandmother would say shh, that is how we use to communicate, talking for long times on the phone. i have two boys the to get even talk on the cellphone. a text, tweet, and everything else. pollsters will have to find a way to interact with people

where they are. on twitter, on facebook, and other social media applications. we will still be able to call people over 54 a few more years, but that is it. this is the last presidential election that will be dominated by telephone polling. if any of you figure out the correct model, please let me know. we are all looking for it. on a serious note, the way we work is we experiment. at the end of the election night this year, my firm will go back over every poll we have conducted to look at what went right, what went wrong, and we will try to create a better model. we are doing some polls this year entirely without phones to see how they look. we will learn from those. in 2013 they have practice races in virginia and new jersey so that we can tweak the models.

i would expect that in the next few election cycles you will see more surprises than you have seen in a very long time. >> thank you very much. rick santorum, at rendell. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow we will talk about campaign spending on "washington journal." followed by a discussion on the ball -- battleground state of iowa and its six electoral votes. we will look at the politics and history of this state. and then the chairs of the state political parties will talk about how they are spending their final days before the election. first, the democratic party chairman, followed by the republican party chairman. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span.

>> as we approach election day, c-span is asking the school students and high school students to send a message to the president. "what is the most temperate -- important issue the president should consider in 2013"? $50,000 in total prizes. the video student competition is open to students grades 6 through 12, the deadline is january 8, 2013. find out more at studentcam.org. >> next, bob casey faces republican tom smith for u.s. senate in pennsylvania. this one hour long debate is co hosted by the league of women voters, courtesy of wpbi tv. >> this is the pennsylvania senatorial debate. today's debate is brought to you by [unintelligible] with the league of women voters

of pennsylvania. in alphabetical order, the candidates are democrat, bob casey. republican, tom smith. our panelists are anchor [unintelligible] and action news reporter vernon odem. moderating the debate, jim gardner. >> hello, this is the only broadcast debate in the 2012 senate race between bob casey and tom smith. here are the rules to which they have agreed for today's meeting. the format will include questions candidates from me and our panelists. a coin toss determines the podium position and order of questioning. candidates will have 90 seconds for closing statements. the candidates are here to speak about the issues that voters care about in this important

campaign. gentleman, to prepare for this debate, i asked an acquaintance what he has gotten out of the campaign. after a moment or two of hesitation, he said -- well, there is this senator's zeroth thing, then there is this tea party prom thing going on. i asked him -- what else have you gotten out of the campaign? he stared at me and said that he could not really say. i would ask you two gentlemen if you think the campaign has reached the voters and if you are proud the -- proud of the way this campaign has gone. >> first of all, i want to thank the league of women voters, monica, vernon, and you, for us to be here today. but this campaign is about -- we have been trying to get the word out, not something that your

party or family affiliates with, but if you think the country is headed in the right direction and if we need to change course. this is why i have put out a five step plan. as i travel across the state, the people i talk to predominately, it is the economy and jobs. that is what i am running on and put a plan for to do, getting this economy roaring again. get deficit spending stop and start paying down this national debt. like i said, i have had that plan for this last four years or five years as the economy has stagnated. i have been in the business world for 44 years. that is where i spent my entire

life. i am no career politician. i am a businessman that wants to go to washington to help change things. >> mr. casey. >> that you for this opportunity, you and the league of women voters. as this campaign gets down to the final weeks, people of a chance to vote for both candidates. because of the intensity of the coverage they are seeing real differences in the campaign. one example, medicare. medicare is a promise to folks who have fought our wars, worked in our factories, worked in this country. there is a vast difference between the two of us on this issue. i not only believe that we have to take steps to make sure that we have a guaranteed benefit of medicare, but i voted that way to strengthen medicare to make sure that we take steps to never take away that guaranteed

benefit. my opponent thinks we should take away the guarantee benefit of medicare and changed it either by giving someone a voucher or changing it even more radically. the good news is that despite all the concerns that some people have about the way campaigns are conducted, at the end a lot of folks know the differences on jobs and we are moving the economy forward to make sure that we are doing everything possible to honor seniors and protect their medicare. >> i could ask about medicare or health care reform again in a few moments, or you could both have another few moments to talk about it right now. that is your choice. i can ask about health care again, or you can address that issue now. >> the affordable care act that senator casey voted for is one of the biggest power grabs in the history of this country.

senator casey is standing in a way of getting it repealed. i want to see the affordable care act repealed and replaced with a plan that respects our rights, pays our doctors, and uses the free enterprise principles. now, what do i have against the affordable care act? do you want to turn over 1/6 of this economy in this country to bureaucrats like the ones that run the irs and the post office? the supreme court has ruled it is a tax. that is why it is still held. my opponent, senator casey, has voted for that. that is 22 new taxes on every class. >> that is not true. gone. >> -- go on. >> anyhow, the affordable care

act is dragging down the economy. this election is about jobs. the affordable care act is one of the reasons businesses are so afraid to expand and hire. it is hurting our economy and needs to be overturned and replaced with the things i said. >> mr. casey? you have 90 seconds. >> i agree with one part, the number one issue in the campaign is jobs. will we continue to move this economy in the right direction or we take a turn into the ditch we were in? but health care here is what i believe. most americans believe that even if they are in disagreement with the legislation, we need to get democrats and republicans coming together to make sure this works. no. 2, most people in this country do not want us to go back to the time when children with pre-existing conditions do

not have coverage for treatment. where young people cannot have the coverage on their parents or families plan. we have got to do everything we can to make sure that we implement it the right way. i have already supported lots of changes to the legislation. i will do more. but the worst thing we can do is put our head in the sand and do nothing, or to have a big partisan fight about it. we need to make it work, protect our children, make sure that our seniors are protected, and not have a big fight for the next 10 years to 15 years. finally, repeal blows and $800 billion hole in the deficit for the next 10 years. a mistake and we should address so that we get this right. >> mr. casey, you have call yourself an independent, but you have voted with the president on the big-ticket items, health care, economic stimulus, the

automobile bailout. what areas do you differ with with president obama? >> when you represent a state like ours, you have to make a commitment and have your work reflect the fact you are an independent voice for the people of the state. i think i have done that. when i have made changes to have a stronger health care system or have made make -- moves to create jobs in philadelphia, we could deepen the channel and get bigger ships. in terms of differences, the differences i have had with the president have been fairly substantial. for example, a trade agreement. a lot powerful interests in washington wanted us to have a trade agreement with south korea, columbia, and panama. i voted against all three.

one, i thought that pennsylvania would get the short end of that stick. i think we have some history with nafta that did not go very well for our state. another example, the currency manipulation by china. when china cheats on currency, we lose jobs i and of selena. those are two, and i can list some more. there is a contrast here on this stage. i am against the free-trade deals. the opponent -- my opponent is in favor of them. he is in favor of going the same way as washington. >> before mr. smith replies, would you be in favor of increasing tariffs in china? >> certainly, if we can get implemented. cracking down on chinese currency manipulation, if it is not an exact definition, it is a reasonable equivalent.

we need to have some measure that finally put some consequences on china. over one decade we lost 100,000 jobs. >> when it comes to china, i said before that i believe that the american people can compete with any worker in the world. i still believe that, as long as we keep the playing field level. i will as a senator fight to do that. senator bob casey was saying that being in lockstep with president obama, the voting record indicates something a bit different. you vote with the president over 90 percent said of the time. the voters in pennsylvania want a leader. how can you sit in the united states senate, your party

controls it, you have not pass a budget in over three years. we will go on. we need problem solvers. we need to get this economy rolling again. in your one term in the senate you have voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling over $7.50 trillion. not once have i heard where you came forward with -- ok, here is how we are going to grow this economy and get deficit spending stopped. here is how we will start paying down the national debt. i have brought forth a plan. at least let's talk about that. to just keep raising the debt on our children is not the answer. >> you have a question for mr. smith? >> both parties have been widely

accused of kowtowing to the big banks. they are the contributors. will you be leading the way to reform wall street, or are they too far intrenched and in the black with politicians? >> that is one thing and bring to this campaign, i am a citizen candidate and i am beholden to no one. i was a democrat and i had to leave them because of some of their policies. i became a republican and i was not the choice of the republican party here in pennsylvania. the voters in pennsylvania could find few people beholding to big business like most career politicians are then tom smith. i am my own person, my own man. and i will represent all panamanians. we have got to get the economy roaring, got to get that deficit spending under control. i have the plans and the

background to do that. that is what i've done for 44 years. i started running businesses when my father passed away at 19 and have been doing it ever since. i have a good sense of what it takes to grow the economy. i have a really good sense of the enormous amount of regulations put on by the federal government and state government. do not give me wrong, we need reasonable regulations on businesses, wall street as well. but most businesses and people are just getting inundated by regulations. >> would you break up the big banks or move to do so? >> sorry? >> would you move to break up the big banks? there has been all of this saber rattling, but nothing has happened. >> my opponent, listen, voted for was light tarp and all of that, which bailed out big banks.

that is what career politicians have been doing, bailing out big banks. they play fast and loose with the rules and the inevitable happens. what does our government do? it comes in and bail them out. i believe we should not be bailing out big banks. i believe that some of those banks just get too big. >> follow-up question, mr. casey. two minutes. >> a good question. first, i want to provide some balance to the previous question. mr. smith talked about the debt ceiling. the reason why we have the kind of ideological fight that happened last summer is because you had tea party forcing the country to go to the edge of a cliff and almost default on our obligations to pay our bills. he can talk all that he wants about how we pay our bills, but if we are going to allow tea

party ideology to govern washington, we will be in worse shape. if we default on our obligations, as he has proposed on this issue, it would ruin the economy, it would lead to job loss in the millions, and it would be terrible for the future economic prospects of the country. i voted in favor of legislation to finally, finally cracked down on the abuses of wall street, the kind of let the people were playing with the money that folks invested. powerful interests making deals undermining our economy. we finally have the legislation to do that, to protect consumers and provide more transparency. it is not perfect. we will have to change and strengthen it. but to say that you will allow wall street to run wild like it did for years, that is not in the best interest of the country. we have to crack down on abuses

by holding banks accountable when they engage in fraudulent practices. >> monica, question for mr. casey. >> 80 people each day in the united states by a gunshot wounds. some say that handguns are too readily available. children's toys are more heavily regulated than handguns in most cases. would you like to see stricter regulations for handguns? should we read frame the debate and call it a public safety and health issue at this point? >> on this issue we have a strong consensus in our state. i have been a longtime supporter of the second amendment. we do not need new gun laws. i think it will be should do is invest in proven strategies, strategy that we know work, to be very tough on those who commit violence and crime with guns. part of that is making sure that

in terms of what we can do, it is not to cut these burns justice assistance grant in courts with prosecutors and law enforcement. to be very determined to have the federal government playing a constructive role, cracking down on crime, sending people to prison when they engage in that kind of violent activity. even though there is certainly a big debate about the second amendment across the country, i think we can bring people together and get democrats and republicans to work together on cracking down on crime. >> mr. smith, your response? >> i agree with his second amendment stands. i think we have sufficient regulations on the books, gun laws. listen, we need to do more.

the cause of these, why guns are used. a study was recently done in the nation's capital that said most murders with handguns were done by two people arguing who knew each other. so, we need to address a lot of things, but we need to get more involved with why this is happening. is some of it because we cannot get jobs? there are a lot of things involved here. a lot of people are getting so distraught about not being able to find jobs. as i travel across this state, and it is a great state, i have found that what people want to talk about is jobs in the economy. that is uppermost in their mind and why i am running for the u.s. senate and why i put forth my plan.

i would love to discuss that. i am a second amendment supporter. >> question for mr. smith. >> mr. smith, what about the bill for funding infrastructure improvements in the country? i listened to an expert described the united states is a second world country in terms of mass transit, bridges, and roads. are you willing to vote to fund and straighten out these infrastructure problems? >> i am a big believer that this infrastructure in this country is getting towards its life's end. we do need to invest in infrastructure. it is just like any other thing the buy, purchase, or build. it has a life expectancy. >> so, you would vote for something? >> i did not say that. no. we need to come to the realization that that is the problem we have.

the bottom line is that infrastructure is declining and needs to be redone. so, we need to get the funding to do that. one of the ways to do that is to grow the economy. there is more than one way to fund transportation. you know, if we was to cut some of our other areas, such as the energy department's -- you know, there is lots of places where we can cut expenses in this country. let's do that. we make a lot. find a way to shift that money to infrastructure in this country. because it is hurting the economy. i felt that firsthand when i was in business and we could not pull some of the product direct. we had to go around and now is the time to get started. >> a good question for two

reasons. it is substantive and it shines a light on some of washington with partisanship ideology. we have had complications in my six years in -- we have had opportunities in my six years in the senate to invest in roads, public works, and ways to improve the economy in pennsylvania and the country. and to invest in the new technologies of the future that will create jobs. unfortunately, the partisanship meant we had a very close vote on the recovery act. candidly, looking back on it, we should have done more on that bill when it passed. secondly, we have a transportation bill that is a little more than two years, only 27 months. it used to be that democrats and republicans would work together to pass more robust transportation bills. to invest across the country so

that we are creating jobs and at the same time rebuilding the foundation of the economy. on the transportation bill, one of the reasons it was held up for so long was because the tea party and the house in their ideology kept it from moving forward. i would hope that my opponent, word -- were he to be elected, would say to the tea party that we need to invest in the future, create jobs, and move the economy forward, which means disagreeing with the two-party and investing in infrastructure. >> the fiscal cliff will happen on january 1st of the congress of the united states does nothing before then. but the congress has been getting at practice at doing nothing. if that should happen, taxes will go up for the average

american family by about $3,500. federal spending will go down by $110 billion for the next fiscal year. almost all economists that you read or talk to will say that the united states will go back into a recession, unemployment will go back over 9%. the fiscal cliff is a dangerous present his. let's say, for a moment, that each of you -- dangerous precipice. let's say you write a plan to prevent us going over the fiscal cliff. what would your plan look like? >> despite the partisanship and division in washington, there's a consensus that we have to take action between election day and the end of the year to limit this sequester. it would not be good for everyone.

it would be bad for defense and non-defense. there's enough awareness of the gravity of the impact and how horrible it would be to our economy. i'm confident we can get it done. i'm not underestimating the difficulty, but we can get it done. when we approach the short-term crisis, between now and the end of the year, but also the long term, we need to balance. we need a bipartisan balance on spending and revenue with both parties coming together. i have been in the senate not quite six full years, but i have voted for $1 trillion in cuts. i will vote for more, but i will not support a plan that was reckless in the way that we cut spending. there's a lot of ways we can achieve efficiency and provide better results. i was the auditor general of the state for 10 years and general for two years and i saw a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse.

we to bring people together to have that balance and invest in what helps us grow like medical research, infrastructure, and cut what does not work. >> forgive me, sir. i appreciate your outlook and vision. i ask if you had written the plan what it would look like specifically and i don't think i have heard that. >> i do not have a written plan. my votes in the senate indicate what my priorities would be. we do not want 535 members with their run a written plan, but that does not mean we cannot have a good exchange. not just as a matter of principle, but in terms of backing up with votes, i want to protect the middle income families. republicans in the senate will not do this, but we should have a vote to make sure that middle- income families have their tax rates kept in place we can make that a priority. then the can talk about people at the higher incomes and have a

big debate about that. we need to protect the middle income tax brackets and make sure that whatever proposal we have is bound so we make the right investments today. >> he would support the extension of the payroll tax cut for another time? >> i led the fight on getting this year's tax cut in forest. that put $1,000 in the pockets of the average working families. 6.5 million people in pennsylvania benefited from that. we have to make sure we protect the middle-income families and their tax rates and figure out a way, with the payroll tax cuts, that whether a measure that was meant to be temporary needs to be continued. again, under the principles of protecting the middle-income families and having a balanced approach. >> mr. smith, we will give you some extra time. >> thank you, jim. let's start in reverse.

the payroll tax that senator casey has been for, he would vote again for this. the payroll deduction tax? >> i am firmly for this. "some just curious. when you really look at it, -- >> i'm just curious. when you look at it, the people who needed help got help. the reason they needed help was because congress, for years, has not had the backbone and the leadership to get the hard decisions made, to get government downsized. stop spending and stop borrowing money from china. we have to quit doing it. senator, with all due respect to have been in the senate for six years and we do not have an economy that is roaring. we have to do that. we still have this huge, huge deficits spending. the fiscal cliff, bottom line,

has been due to lack of leadership in the former congress and we just keep wasting the time of the american people while they're needing jobs. my opponent has not come forward with a plan. i have a plan on how to grow this economy, a five-step plan. it involves ending deficit spending, getting the tax code simplified to eliminate all of the special-interest loopholes that are in theire is likely put in there by politicians trying to get really. we have to save medicare and medicaid. that is a part of my plan. we have to get this economy going. we have to get government downsized to where it gets off the backs and out of the way of the american people. this fiscal cliff is serious. no doubt about it. bottom line, we have gotten here

because of no action in the past and we need to send people to washington that will make those decisions to get this economy going. we have the plan to do that. >> vernon, a question for mr. smith. >> some of your republican colleagues and counterparts across the country are talking about federal budget cuts including school lunch programs and cutting the food inspectors to cut the deficit. would you cut those kinds of things? klutz i want to check every department, every policy that the government has -- >> i want to check every department. we have allowed the government to grow so big it, so suffocating that it touches everyone of us. what specifically, what do you want to cut? you have been studying this. >> i want to look at every department.

why is the department of commerce so huge? i want to look at all of them. i don't think anybody believes that there is not waste and duplication in there. it's there. >> so school lunch programs and food inspectors? are they on the table? >> everything should be looked at. where can we say the most, starting with a business, where is the biggest problem? it's in all issues. >> defense? >> i would have never gone along with that sequestration. congress was not doing their job by forming that committee. with defense cuts, yes, look at it. my question is not how much we can cut from defense, but how much we need to defend this country. let's talk about another department, the department of energy.

started in the carter administration in the 1970's and its main purpose was to get off of foreign oil. but here we are coming billions of dollars later, and we are no closer than where we started. last year alone, the department of energy's and $90 billion on green energy boondoggles. stop and think. if you had a department designed to get us off foreign oil and decades later it has not done its job, would you believe that there has been over $1 trillion spent by the department of energy since it was started? we have to look at all of them. all of the above. >> mr. casey. >> a quicker bottle on some of the earlier point. -- a quick rebuttal. when tom smith was asked about a cut in payroll taxes, he called

it a gimmick. it created a lot of jobs and move the economy forward. secondly, the budget proposal that vice presidential candidate ryan set forward for the course of two years, use the tax implications in there for the whole country. when "the washington post" analyze the tax proposals in the rhine budget, they said middle- class taxes would go up. if you want a tax increase, tom smith is your candidate. on the question of school lunches and food inspection, i voted for a lot of cuts. when we went to the debate last summer, we cut $900 billion over the next 10 years of the federal budget. did i agree with everyone? no, but we should not be cutting school lunch programs for kids so they can learn more now and burn more later. we should not be taking a risk

with the health of americans by cutting back on the health of americans. i have a voting history i can point to and you can judge me by that. unfortunately, tom smith supports radical budget increasing middle-class taxes, and medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program, and be devastating for those who are vulnerable in a slow-growth economy. >> i'm going to begin this question with mr. casey. forget the glasses but i want to get this right. indiana senate m canid itoudo -- candidate mourdouk says --" even if life begins in rape, it is something god intended to happen." do you agree that life, conceived through rape, is "a gift from god that should never be aborted?" >> i do not,. that was an outrageous statement.

i do think that, despite the fights we have across the country, there is a lot of common ground on the issue of abortion believe it or not. i am pro-life democrat. i have held that position all these years, 16 years as a public official. i know the divisions in the debate, but i do think there are a lot of ways to bring people together, not just democrats and republicans, but across the country. we should emphasize the areas we agree to reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. example number one is making sure we invest in family planning and funding contraception. example two is providing for adoption. i put in a $1.20 billion adoption tax credit. thirdly, legislation i introduced that became enacted into law to make sure that if a

pregnant woman who is vulnerable, a victim of violence, situations like that, that she can get extra help if she wants it. i do think that these are issues that we need to be very clear about and reject statements that are contrary to what most americans believe about that horrific circumstance. >> mr. smith, do you agree with mr. mourdouck? >> not at all. i am pro-life. that being said, i would like to clear up a few things senator casey said a time or two. he said my plan would eliminate social security -- >> forgive me. let's keep our attention, for the moment come on this issue. >> i'm sorry. i thought we had time to rebut. >> you are against abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is put in

jeopardy. i'm trying to figure out where you disagree with mr. mourdouck. >> he never should have said anything like that and i do not agree. since there seems to be some misunderstanding. i am pro-life. period. that's it. i'm pro-life, period. wherever you read that, jim, that's an accurate. -- inaccurate. the rather than try to divide people with deeply held views on this, we need to come together, like senator casey has said. my wife and i adopted four children. it was not that easy to do, but we managed to do it. many to work together to reduce those things -- not adoption,

abortion. i'm pro life, larry. >> i'm jim. >> i even have that written here. i have to put my glasses on to see that. >> let's continue with monica for mr. smith. >> the average woman makes 70 cents for every $1 that men make and in 2012 that has been getting a little bit better, but not markedly. how would you strike a fair balance? what legislation would you like to see past to make sure we deserve equal going forward? >> monica, i believe equal pay for equal work wholeheartedly. we need to do everything and anything we can. education would be a good thing. why is this happening? we need to confront that head on. i have been blessed to be surrounded by women of substance. my wife was a professional school teacher for 30 years.

my one daughter runs a business. my one daughter runs a business.